SAB76

On 10/21/2019 at 12:57 PM, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

This is really, really messing me up inside, and I am very close to losing my faith all together, because I have no idea at all what to believe; if we can't trust Mathew and Luke to record accurately or even agree with each other, how do we even know what Jesus said and what he didn't? What if the whole truth really has been lost, or worse yet none of it was ever true at all? I'm pleading with you, please, does anybody have an answer?!?!?

Mr. Thomas:

This will be my last post on this thread, as I have come to the conclusion that you are not here seeking what you originally posted. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt, and was moved by your seemingly heartfelt plea for help. Yet, at every turn you continue to reject bible scripture, AS IT IS WRITTEN, and would rather hold on to your opinion of how YOU think the scripture SHOULD have been written.  

If the answers that I have given you, using the scripture AS IT READS, does not satisfy your logic, and you choose it is not the answer you are seeking….then…you already have your answer. That answer being “I see what the scripture says, BUT it is not what or how I would say it.” You have rejected plain, simple, easy to read, English found in the scripture, for your own opinionated idea of logical thinking. You have set yourself up as the foundation, you have set yourself up as the authority as to what or how the scripture SHOULD read if you had written it, because then it would fit your logical outcome. And since you have set yourself and your logical thinking as the foundation and authority…I say, go build upon it. Clutch onto your logic and let it carry you to safety. I can no longer help you, as I do not have the things you desire…“Silver and gold, have I none (Logical things to give a man asking for them); but such as I have give I thee…” (All I have are the words of God written in the KJV) I ask, are you the beggar or Peter in this story? If you see yourself as the beggar, then why do you not receive the help that I have given thus far? You refuse the scripture plainly revealed, yet, have not given one rebuttal, other than your opinion of how you THINK the scripture would read. If you see yourself as Peter, then what are you doing on here at all? Shouldn't you be out offering your hand in help to those seeking "alms"?

As for me, I have no fear, I have no doubt, and I have no questions on my foundation and my authority. I have a solid Rock foundation (Jesus Christ), and have used the scripture as my authority to BUILD my faith. I am grounded, sure and secure in my foundation and the authority of the scriptures, and have complete faith in them that I will stand the winds and rain when they come…Can you say the same?

I am sorry to say Mr. Thomas, but you will not find logic in the scriptures (seriously…look it up. Logic is nowhere in the scriptures). So, since there is no logic in the scriptures, and only logic will suffice to convince you to believe, then your only other recourse would be for you to go back to CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato, these great godly men you claim were full of logic, and receive your peace, answers and security from them.

But I am afraid you will find no peace, security or help from these men. You have allowed yourself to be deceived by these men, especially, by your beloved CS Lewis. (And this will be the point you shut your ears, close your eyes, and harden your heart.) Because, how dare I speak evil of this great man of God. I speak evil of him, because he has a “form of godliness, but denies the power thereof”. He is worse than the worst murder this world has known. WHY? Because at least you knew the murder wanted to kill you, but CS Lewis, just like Satan, pretends to be an angel of light, a wolf in sheep’s clothing, sending men and women to hell by LYING to them. HOW? CS Lewis is damning others to hell with his allegorical teachings of salvation by works, and “becoming” saved, rather than what the bible says in Eph. 2:8-9. His teaching is that faith in Christ is what gives man a “second chance” at salvation. In other words that his faith opens the door for him to make the necessary steps to attain eternal life. How is this any different than the Catholic teaching? And then there is the false hope he gives for those that may have had the faith, but did not quite make the necessary steps on earth. That hell is locked from the inside, and that man can choose not to remain there. Hell is NOT locked from the inside. Man cannot choose to leave hell and make a long upward journey to gain eternal life as taught in “The Great Divorce”. Christ is the one with the keys of death and hell. He has control over death and hell. If a man does not want to be trapped in hell, then he MUST receive eternal life through Christ by faith, and FAITH ALONE, to save him from death and hell. No Grey Town, no bus trip to the valley, no upward climb to God, no chance of ever getting out. The rich man in Luke 16 was damned and there was no escape from his ETERNAL burning and torment in the F-L-A-M-E of hell.

I will leave you with these final scriptures, which I am sure you have read and know. These 2 verses are completely illogical when read by a man devoid of faith, yet, for those THAT BELIEVE they are turned into Niagara size waterfalls of living water that bring comfort and security. But sir, IF you have not come to Christ and asked him to save you, and put “illogical” faith in a man you have never met, nor heard to save your sinful lost soul from a burning lake of fire, these verses will pour on you as gasoline while you burn for eternity.

“For the which cause I also suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I KNOW whom I have BELIEVED, and am PERSUADED that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him against that day.”

“These things have I WRITTEN unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may KNOW that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.”

16 hours ago, Guest Mr. Thomas said:

To SAB76: I think 'reprobate' is a little harsh for poor Plato, he advocated for the existence of One God even though he grew up in a pagan country and never heard of Christ or Judaism, and he was a big scholar of justice. In fact once, he described what society would do if a truly perfect and just man appeared like this: "our just man must have the worst of reputations even though he has done no wrong. So we shall be able to test his justice and see if it can stand up to unpopularity and all that goes with it; we shall give him an undeserved and lifelong reputation for wickedness, and make him stick to his chosen course until death … The just man, then, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified." That's pretty close to what actually happened when Christ appeared, which I think is pretty neat. Also, my understanding is that he was beaten and sold into slavery himself (and his friend Socrates was executed) for fighting corruption and paganism in Greece. Sure, he was not a Christian, but he also died 300 years before Christ was born and never met an Israelite so I think we ought to give him a pass on that one.

Also, to say CS Lewis taught that Genesis and Job were fables is a little strong, I think it might be more accurate to say that he tried to logically prove the existence of God and some other primary Christian principles, like the existence of miracles and the trinity, but didn't think he could prove Genesis or Job. And some of his more famous quotes include things like "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.", and " Once people stop believing in God, the problem is not that they will believe in nothing; rather, the problem is that they will believe anything. ". I think those are pretty cool sayings, and his books often had subjects like how to overcome temptations and such. He wrote a lot of christian stuff in a manner specifically to bring stubborn highbrows like me to Christ, which I think is pretty commendable.

And I think Aquinas probably would have agreed with everything you have said, I only mentioned him because he also thought Biblical principals could also be affirmed logically (that a logical person would have to eventually believe in God, because God's word is the only thing that is logical).

I'm don't think you can take any of these guy's word without question, but I think they might have been better men than you think. I think you'll definitely see Lewis and Aquinas in Heaven though, so you probably shouldn't talk so bad about them. I think Peterson is the only one you wouldn't like if you met him, but I think he might be a better man than you think too (he became famous for refusing to obey Canada's new "gender pronoun" law, and he tours around the world promoting truth and a return to traditional values). I get that I might be irritating (though I swear I don't mean to be), but I don't think any of those guys deserved to be talked down to.

But that's not really relevant to my questions, I just thought I ought to not give them a bad name.

So what's your opinion on the divorce law thing I mentioned in my last post?

So what's your opinion on the salvation thing I mentioned in my last post? 

Maybe instead of worrying about divorce law issues, you should be more concerned with the "What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ?" issue.

What have you done with Jesus? I am beginning to question your salvation. Why do you keep avoiding that question? This may explain why you have a lot of head knowledge, yet the Holy Ghost doesn't speak to you and confirm the word of God in your heart. 

If you believe Lewis and Aquinas are in heaven, then I would suggest you need to really self evaluate your own salvation. Lewis's salvation is extremely questionable...I see no testimony of him admitting that he was a sinner, and heading to hell, and ASKED Christ to save him. His testimony, was that he was riding shotgun in a sidecar, and went from believing in God to believing that Jesus was the Son of God. THAT IS NOT SALVATION. The bible says that the devils believe also (James 2:19). Believing that Jesus was the Son of God is not the gospel. Thomas Aquinas's salvation is even more in doubt. He believed and practiced, and taught the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church....works for salvation. THAT IS NOT SALVATION. The bible says that it is by grace through faith plus NOTHING. (Eph. 2:8-9)

Sir, until this issue is resolved, I'm afraid there is no hope of you ever believing the bible is the word of God...."He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God." (Jn. 8:47)

First, thank you for reading my post with such detail! I really appreciate it!

Taking things in order and starting first with your first (and incidentally also your last) stanza: I'm not really sure why I became a Christian; I grew up in a good Baptist household, and I was baptized when I was very young.

So you have realized that you were a sinner, in need of the Savior, and have asked Christ to save you from hell? Is this what you mean by “became a Christian”? Or are you depending on your good upbringing and baptism?

However, I can tell you why I stayed in: exposure to the works of CS Lewis. I know he's just a man, but he was probably the most good, wholesome, and honest Christian from whom I have ever read, excepting of course the apostles and Paul. He, like the great St. Thomas Aquinas and Plato the ancient Athenian, believed that not only nature and the moral laws contained evidence of Christ, but logic itself too. He was a great boon to my Christian life, because he provided such compelling logical arguments that I became totally convinced of the validity of God's word in my mind as well as in my heart. He was wrong about some things no doubt, but he was undoubtedly a great man of God; I would stake my life on that. If you ask why I still manage to cling to God even as I doubt the Bible (and the earth might as well have collapsed for how stressful that is) it is because of the straightforward and Godly logic and teachings of CS Lewis. I'll try anybody you think will help, including Dr. Peter Ruckman, but CS Lewis is the one man I most hold responsible my salvation. He's not a source of doubt Jordan Peterson I can take or leave, I just mentioned him because he seemed relevant.

As to your second set of paragraphs, the one that references 2nd Peter: I don't really doubt God, I just doubt that the Bible is his word. You don't really need to talk about proof of God, I'm already there.

You must not have understood the passage in 2^nd Peter, which is part of the problem you are having. The passage quoted in 2^nd Peter was not a proof of God, but a proof of the word of God, and how great it is.

Please read the passage carefully:

2 Peter 1:16-19

“For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.” – Firstly, he starts out describing that he was an eyewitness to the evidence to the truth of the scriptures when he SAW the glory of the second coming of the Lord upon the Mount of Transfiguration. He is stating that he has SEEN a great wondrous sight with his own eyes.

Also, a side note….notice that Peter is stating that we are NOT following fables (I believe this to be the opposite as what CS Lewis teaches, correct? That Genesis and Job are fables?)

“For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

“And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.” – Secondly, he goes on to say that we have also HEARD the evidence of God’s voice confirming the truth about the Messiah on the Mount of Transfiguration.

So the set up for the next verse, is “I am telling you that I and a few others have seen the GLORIFIED transformation of Jesus, and heard the very AUDIBLE voice of God himself, and these great signs are less SURE than the very scriptures that you hold in your own hands.”

“We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:”  - I have enlarged it, bolded it, underlined it, and italicized it for you to READ, SEE, and HEAR. This is the context of the passage in 2^nd Peter. The written word of God is MORE SURE than the SEEING, and HEARING God himself.

The Lord holds his word in such high esteem that he said the following: “I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” (Ps. 138:2)

As to the set that referenced 1 Kings: Yes, the widow might have doubted that the command "give your last biscuit" was really from God, but she had the prophet Elijah there, who she did know spoke on behalf of God, to verify and back the claim up. She didn't take it as blind faith either; she had a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. I, in perhaps a similar situation, might (reasonably I think) doubt that the Bible is really from God, so like the widow, I think I should have a verified mouthpiece of God to confirm. Now, I don't know anyone God has trusted enough to perform miracles and speak for him like he did Elijah, so I have to resort to other verified mouthpieces of God to confirm the Bible. The only other mouthpiece I know of is truth, which God confirms to us by way of logic. If you (or anyone) can logically prove to me that the Bible is inerrant, then I will accept that as Godly verification. I want that proof, so that's why I'm out searching for it, but if I can't tell if God wants me to give away my starving son's last biscuit to a fat man, then I think I should feed my son.

Please show me where she knew who Elijah even was when he showed up? The widow was a Gentile woman that lived in Zidon. She never heard Elijah preach or seen him perform one miracle her entire life. The miracle came AFTER she believed him, and the word he preached to her. Again the blessing and miracle comes after faith.

This is the point I was trying to make….Until you receive the word of God to be the word of God, the word of God cannot work effectually in you. “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.” (1 Thess. 2:13) The blessing and miracles come AFTER the faith in the word.

You have been corrupted by Thomas Aquinas, Plato, and even CS Lewis to think it is received any other way. These men did not receive nor believe the word of God, and have instead instilled in you and countless others a doubt just as the Devil put into the ears and heart of Eve when he asked just one question…”Yea, HATH GOD SAID…????” This has been the tool of the Devil from the beginning and continues to this day.

As to the part about Judas: Yes, we do use "he" in that manner, but we still don't say 'he broke his arm' or 'he fell down on his face' about cadavers, and I think this usage of "he" falls closer to that usage.

I have shown you from scripture that this statement is not true. 

And ten young men that bare Joab's armour compassed about and smote Absalom, and slew him.

And Joab blew the trumpet, and the people returned from pursuing after Israel: for Joab held back the people.

And they took Absalom, and cast him into a great pit in the wood, and laid a very great heap of stones upon him: and all Israel fled every one to his tent.

You have chosen to ignore the scripture, and set yourself as the authority to determine what words God should have used. 

As to the use of "headlong", yes I agree, just like you said, how could a hanged body fall headfirst? Well this is the definition of headlong:

And that makes it seem like he wasn't hanging. I'm think it's pretty clear the author here meant "headfirst" because saying a body fell "in an impetuous manner", "rashly", "without deliberation" or "without respite" makes even less sense than the other meaning.

I did give the wrong definition of the word headlong, and I apologize for that. I should have kept reading and would have seen the correct definition. (HEADLONG, adjective Steep; precipitous – Websters 1828 dictionary) (PRECIPITOUS, adjective Headlong; directly or rapidly descending; as a precipitous fall – Websters 1828 dictionary) Again, I apologize for giving the wrong definition in the first post, but it was this definition that I was trying to convey.

So, I have done all that I can to show you the truth of this supposed discrepancy...I still hold to what I originally said: Judas hung himself, and either died from hanging, and then hung for 3 days till the great earthquake caused his fall, or hung himself, and something broke immediately and he fell to his death. Either way it happened….Judas died, just as scripture says he did.

 

Finally, to touch back on your last paragraph: Piecing the truth together from the Bible is exactly what I am trying to do, with your (plural) help. The problem is that the closer you look, the more disjoints you find between the pieces.

What disjoints are you speaking of? I have shown you the supposed disjoints of the last 2 examples you gave. The first I showed was due to a simple skimming over words (Man shall live by EVERY word of God) that added more detail to the numbering of the army. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail. And then the second example was in 2 parts: 1) You assumed the 2 scriptures were the same event, even though there was clearly a difference in the two scriptures with one being him at the age of 8 and the other at 18, and if that wasn’t enough to show you that they were different events the scripture gave you further proof they were not the same event with one saying 3 months and 10 days and the other being just 3 months. And 2) You failed to perform simple arithmetic which would have led you to the same conclusion that the two verses were not the same event. You saw them being in error because you wanted to believe the scripture was in error. If you truly wanted to believe the word, you would have studied EVERY word and compared EVERY word, and would have saw the DIFFERENCES in the scripture not as error, but as more detail.

I say again…Heb. 4:12 & Ezek. 14:4 – The scripture read your heart and answered you according to your idols (CS Lewis, Aquinas, and Plato)

Also, as a mostly irrelevant aside; even if you believe the Bible is inerrant, there's still lots of passages that you can't believe in literally.

You have already determined in your heart that the scripture is wrong and that you are right.

You can’t believe the Lord….I can believe, I can believe every passage as literal, unless the scripture says otherwise. If the scripture said the sky was orange, I would believe the scripture no matter what my eyes, or science, or any other outside source told me. Because scripture is from God’s point of view NOT mine. This is not blind faith, this is believing in the written word, that I can see, hold, hear, and read. I believe God to be true and EVERY MAN a LIAR…including my own self.

The Catholics loved to use the passage from Psalms 19:6 about the sun: "It rises at one end of the heavens and makes its circuit to the other; nothing is deprived of its warmth." as supposed "proof" that the sun revolved around the earth, and there's plenty of other, darker passages like Psalms 137:9, which gives a blessing to any man who would snatch a Babylonian baby from its mother and bashes it's brains out on the ground. That clearly don't align with God's will. Those passages don't necessarily mean the Bible is errant, it just means that some books (like Psalms) are meant as just holy poetry and not serious theological teachings. In those cases, it would be just as wrong to take them literally as it would to take some other passages symbolically, because it's wrong to use parts of the Bible outside their intended purposes, and the intended purpose of those passages is only related to music and worship.

As to Ps. 19:6, I will admit that I am not 100% sure what this verse implies. I see what it says, I don't fully understand it, but just because I do not understand it, doesn’t make it untrue or not literal. I point back to my prior statement. If God said the sky was orange then I would believe it was orange, because that is the way he sees it. Whether I believe it or not does not change what God said. I would pray over it, study it, and seek teaching. And even IF I never know for sure what it is saying, I would not question God’s view on the matter. BECAUSE does it really amount to a hill of beans if I know whether the sun is still or moves? What does that have to do with me living an everyday life that he is pleased with, or how will knowing this make me a better preacher of the gospel to lead sinners from hell to the Savior, or how will having this knowledge gain me any mercy at my eventual giving account for what I did in the body at the Judgment seat of Christ? God is interested in how big my heart is, not how big my head is.

As to the Ps. 137:9, I’m not sure where you see that God blesses a man for dashing babies. That is not what I read. I read a sad song of when Israel was carried away to Babylon, and the Psalmist prophesying against Babylon that when they get destroyed they will be done as they did to the Israelites. The Babylonians came in to Israel and were happy to dash the Israelite’s babies against the rocks. So when Babylon’s time was come to be destroyed, then the Meads and the Persians would be happy to dash the Babylonian babies against the rocks.

But I suppose this is what happens when you go back to the “original” language to get a “better” definition of an already translated and PLAIN English word. You end up turning “happy” into “blessed”. The KJV translators had enough sense to know that God wouldn’t bless any man that dashed babies to death, and therefore did not translate that word into “blessed”. But you better believe that man can become so depraved, and cruel that he would get some sick twisted enjoyment from dashing babies. So they translated it “Happy shall he be”.

So, I would once again suggest that you start reading EVERY word AS IT IS WRITTEN, and quit CHANGING what the scripture actually says to thereby further yourself in your unbelief.

CS Lewis didn't think Genesis and Job were symbolic/fictional because he believed they were in error, he just thought they were meant to be passages like Psalms and taken symbolically, not literally. As far as I know he still believed in biblical inerrancy, that part is my own 'discovery', not his. I think Jordan Peterson does think the Bible is all a myth though, (in a way that is less reverent towards the Bible than me). In that way Peterson is pretty sacreligious, but he seems to be an admirer nonetheless, and he has studied the Bible so thoroughly that sometimes he extracts lessons that you probably would have otherwise missed, and he still sometimes (inadvertently) provides teachings genuinely useful to a Christian life. Like I said, I don't approve of his attitude though, so I wouldn't call myself a fan.

 

As I said before…Cut off CS Lewis, Peterson, Aquinas, and definitely that putrefying, unsaved, wicked reprobate Plato, and turn your heart to God. If you continue to reject the truth you have been given, you will find yourself exactly where Herod found himself in Luke 23:9. God will completely ignore you. Herod had chance after chance, and the last thing he heard from the Lord before his terrible, and excruciating death (Acts 12:23) was silence.

To Mr. SAB76: I wrote a reply to you earlier today, but I guess it didn't go through. It was similar in tone and context to my earlier reply to Mr. DaveW. First, I am extremely grateful for your effort and long reply, so thank you! However, a lot of these explanations seem pretty contrived. True, you might be able to work out a way where technically the explanations you provided could work. Yeah, Luke could have been describing Judas' body falling from a noose, but it really seems like he was talking about him walking around then tripping or something. When was the last time you heard someone say something like 'Oh he fell head-over-heels and broke his tailbone' about a dead body? If that's what he meant wouldn't he say 'the body fell down and burst' or something like that? Why would he use the word 'he' instead of 'it', or use the word 'headlong' instead of just 'down'? It seems to me that these words indicate the lateral motion of a man walking or running in a field, not a body in a tree. But anyways, even if the specific wording isn't inescapable, it is still very disquieting, because it definitely doesn't live up to the kind of clarity and precision you would expect from God. I don't find those explanations satisfying or relieving at all, but like I said, I do really appreciate the effort, and would appreciate any more comments or references you can provide!
1. Ok, I now believe in inerrancy
2. Oh wait, here are some passages that contradict, does this mean the Bible is errant?
3. Let's pray, study, and ask some people for help:
4. Ok, I hear some kinda-sorta explanations, but they all rely on the authors suddenly talking in weird, unnatural ways or having strange secret meanings that mean the opposite of what words used in that combination usually mean. Either way, these explanations clearly don't jive with the author's obvious meanings.
5. Huh, well that was no help, I wish somebody had a real explanation that didn't involve grammatical gymnastics, or failing that, could prove that faith is valid even without the Bible, because I'm feeling pretty lost
6. Oh, well here we are in the exact same place as before 

Mr. Thomas,
I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt concerning your truthfulness in your desire to be shown the bible is truth. I am not sure I will help, as it really does seem that you have made up your mind on this subject, and are now desiring proof, and dismiss “technically true” explanations. 
Let me begin with the assumption that, due to your knowledge of the scriptures, and fretting over their inaccuracy, you are a saved, born again, Christian believing in Paul’s gospel. I am assuming you realized that you were a sinner, that Christ died for your sins, and that he rose again the 3rd day to offer all that believe on him eternal life. I am assuming you have received Christ as your savior, and believe on him to save you from hell.
If this is the case, how did you come to this faith? That a resurrected man could forgive your sin, and save you from hell. You received it from the scripture, correct? How do you know the Lord be God? From the scripture, correct? So, how are you choosing which scriptures are true, and which are not? Maybe I am off on this assumption, but you seem to be double minded, and unstable. It seems you have been drawn away from the faith you once had, when you believed the scriptures at salvation, and have been listening to the Devil, as Eve, “Yea, hath God said?” The Devil has not changed his tactics since then, and why should he? They still work. May I suggest (James 1:5-8 & 2 Peter 3:16) as exhortation to what I said in my previous post about how to approach the scriptures. I’m not sure you realize what you, or many others, are holding in your hands. The bible is not just a book. It is a living book (Heb. 4:12) and discerns a man’s heart (Heb. 4:12) before that man ever reads the first verse, and will answer that man, according to the idols in his heart. (Eze. 14:4) This is why I tried to exhort you previously, and now admonish you…If you are saved, and are truly serious, and truthful about your desire for truth, then I strongly suggest you approach the scriptures with a clean, pure intentioned heart, and seek the truth by prayer, study, and preachers & teachers that believe that book AS IT READS, preachers and teachers that don’t dismiss “insignificant” words as not being an issue. Or try to take you back to some dead  language that God does not use any longer. The word of God is preserved, and perfect in the KJV. The “originals" do not exist any where on this earth. Besides the “originals" being dead and gone, they have been TRANSLATED (See Col. 1:13 & Heb. 11:5 for the biblical definition of TRANSLATED…it is always BETTER than the original) into a better and more accurate language.

I chose this name ironically because I predicted that accusation would come out at one point or another. The truth is that I'm not like doubting Thomas, who saw Jesus perform miracles on countless occasions, and personally heard his sermons and speech 24/7 (including the parts where Jesus said he would die and be resurrected) only to abandon his faith the week things looked bad. Doubting Thomas did have proof of the things he believed, then turned away out of fear. The difference is that I have no such proof. I desperately want to believe in biblical inerrancy; my fear is pushing me towards blind acceptance, not away like Thomas. 

So, let me first address the above quote, and perhaps shed some light on what faith is and how it works. And then I will address your latest questions on the Judas “death" issue. You said that you don’t have the miracles that Thomas saw, and have nothing but the word and you are leaning to blind acceptance. But what you call blind acceptance , Peter called…
2 Peter 1:16-19 
For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty.
For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.
And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

The bible says that “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” (Heb 11:1)  I do not ascribe to “blind” faith, nor do I expect anyone to “just believe”. BUT...faith is just that, faith. Faith is not in things, or your understanding or reasoning. Faith is in...people, and what they say…A very simple example, you go to the doctor, and he says you have cancer. He says you must take chemotherapy in order to survive. You say yes, and begin treatments. Why? Because you believe the doctor. Your faith is not in the chemotherapy, it is just the medicine. You believe the doctor has told you the truth, and therefore put your faith in HIM to know what he is talking about, and how to apply the medicine. And since the bible is the word of God, and the Word is God (Jn. 1:1 & 1 Jn. 1:1), then “So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.” (Rom 10:17)
God always tells us what the end is, BUT he does not tell us every detail up to it…This is what makes it faith, and also tests our obedience. For example: (1 Kings 17:1-16) The widow of Zarephath and her son were starving and on their last meal when up pops the preacher Elijah, he was very healthy and had been fed and watered by God for 3 years without missing a single meal. He was fat compared to the widow and her son. So the Lord puts her to the test and show a great example of faith. How? He told the preacher to tell her (How would you like to be put in that position?) to give him the last biscuit, and that if she did that God would supply her with an endless supply of meal until the drought was over. So while it was not blind faith, it was no doubt a hard pill to swallow, when this fat preacher shows up and promises a blessing if you feed him before you feed your starving son. And this is why she is known for her GREAT faith. But her faith was not in the biscuit, oor even in her own reasoning, for surely any mother would feed her starving child before feeding a fat preacher, but her faith was in the preacher, and because she believed him to be the man of God and that he spoke the truth when he made the promise of never ending food IF she trusted the words he spoke. She believed what she was told, and the blessing came afterward…not before. And so, it seems to me, that you are asking for the blessing, before you put faith in the wword.If this is the case, you unfortunately have it backwards.

Now, onto the further information on Judas' death to help clarify your latest questions...
You make suggestion that all 3 explanations were contrived, yet you only gave a few examples of wording you disagree with in the one about Judas. So I will address the Judas issue, as I assume you are still searching for error on the other 2. I believe I showed very clearly in the 2nd and 3rd examples without any funny math or changing words or their definitions to show the scripture may LOOK contradicted, but is in almost every case of these supposed contradictions or funny math situations, the real problem is the scriptures are just not read correctly.

Firstly, you say technically my explanations could work, yet you believe Peter (Peter said this by the way, not Luke - Acts 1:15) would have said “it” or “body” instead of “he”. But you make this claim by assuming that either… 
1) Judas was dead when he fell, (Remember, Matt. says he went and hanged himself…you assume death, but it is not confirmed) (2 Sam. 17:23 speaks of a hanging and confirms death) 
or 
2) that his body cannot be referred to as he, if he were dead when he fell. Although, it is perfectly acceptable in common everyday conversation for people to use this terminology when speaking of dead men. “HE looks so natural”; “HE is buried in Arlington cemetery”; “I want to bury HIM in his favorite suit”. Even scripture uses this terminology…(Josh. 10:26 says “they” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 4:12 says “them” when speaking of dead men) (2 Sam. 18:17 says “Absalom” when speaking of the body of Absalom) 

Another point is that the bible is written in common everyday language. It is not a legal document, nor is it a stenographer’s record. It was the intent of the translators to make it that way…“If God spare my life, ere many years I will cause a boy who drives a plough to know more of the scriptures than you do.” William Tyndale when speaking to an educated clergyman. It is a book that gives its own details and lack of details as it sees fit. 

Secondly, what definition are you ascribing to HEADLONG? The word shows up 3 times in scripture and the other 2 times, it does not mean “head first" it means…1. Rashly; precipitately; without deliberation. 2. Hastily; without delay or respite. How would a body fall headfirst from hanging? 

Thirdly, just because something is NOT in the scriptures doesn’t mean that it isn’t or couldn’t be there. Such as, what caused his bowels to gush out? Well scripture doesn’t say exactly,  but gives enough information to come to a LOGICAL conclusion. He must have fallen from pretty high up in order to gush out OR he must have been hanging dead for a few days, maybe 3, and then a great earthquake so strong that it rent rocks (Matt. 27:51) was strong enough to break the tree he was hanging from, and his decomposing body burst when it hit the ground.

As I said before the bible is full of “evidence" that tells the MAIN story. It is up to the detective (you) to search for it (a little here and a little there, line upon line, precept upon precept) piece it together and come up with the truth. 
Lastly, IF you are really sincere, then I suggest you turn off CS Lewis and Jordan Peterson, and give Dr. Peter S. Ruckman a try. Turn off the influence that questions what God says (Gen 3), and have faith in what you already understand, and allow God the TIME to teach you the rest, as he sees fit, so that you are established and grounded in the milk of the word, and eventually be able to digest the meat and strong meat of the word.

 

I am still awaiting answers to ALL of the aforementioned questions. Do any care to respond?

 

No Nicolaitans, Firstly, thank you for your brief answer, yet I am looking for more, and would prefer scriptural answers rather than opinion and subjective views.

But with the statement you gave of it being an adult....My question is as so. So, an 18 year old that drinks, fights, steals, cheats, fornicates, etc., gets saved and stays clean into his later years can never be a pastor? Or is just the 18 year old that got married and divorced, got right and stayed clean in his later years that can't be a pastor? This is the issue that I have with teaching the "one wife" is one marriage. It creates a major double standard in the forgiveness & dare I say it yet again....the forgetfulness of God. Does not God not only forgive our sins, but also forgets that we ever committed them? (Heb 10:17) Which would include divorce and another marriage, if it were even a sin to begin with. (1 Cor. 7:27-28)

 

To all,

Again, I have asked specific questions and am looking for scriptural answers. 

I understand all are busy, and will continue to wait for the answers to my presented questions.

Thank you.

 

I will address the scriptures you have listed as supposed contradictions. But before I do, I would like to exhort you, and say that there are many things in the scriptures that cannot be simply explained, or at times may not make sense, and seem to be contradictions. My suggestion to you is 1) Take what the scripture says as it reads. If you do not understand it or think there is a contradiction, give it time, and pray to God to reveal to you what the meaning is. 2) Keep your heart sincere. If you are truly seeking for the truth, and not proof there are errors, then God will either show you the answer through the Holy Ghost by opening your eyes to it, or he will show it to you through the Holy Ghost by using a preacher and teacher. Just as he used Philip to preach and teach the Ethiopian eunuch. 3) Accept and receive the truth you already have. If you cannot accept and receive the truth you already know, why would God reveal more to you? You must first be able to handle the milk of the word before you can handle the meat the word, or even the strong meat of the word.

I personally always default to the fact that I am the one that is not smart enough to figure it out or to understand it, and so I ask God to reveal it to me with sincere prayer, much study, and seeking preachers and teachers.

If you are sincere in your desire to know the truth, God will show it, and hopefully you will learn that when we think the scripture is wrong, that, eventually, God will reveal that the scripture is ALWAYS true, and we are the liars. (Rom 3:4)

EXAMPLE #1

Matt. 27:5 And he cast down the pieces of silver in the temple, and departed, and went and hanged himself.

Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the reward of iniquity; and falling headlong, he burst asunder in the midst, and all his bowels gushed out.

As far as the example you gave above, you say that you were given a “half-butt” explanation, but if I may say, it was a PLAUSIBLE explanation. Is there not some cases where people hanged were decapitated or the rope broke, or what they were tied off to broke? (See the deaths of George Painter 1894, Tom Ketchum 1901, and Eva Dugan 1930 for a few examples)

OSHA says that a man tied off in a safety harness must be attached to an anchorage point that can withstand 5,000 lbs of force. They have determined that the average 200 pound man “falling” and then immediately stopping (in this case, very likely, a rope around the neck probably tied to a tree branch?) generates just under 5,000 lbs of weight. So basically his fall is generating enough force to turn him into the weight of a pickup truck if he were to suddenly stop. So yes it is very plausible that he BOTH hanged himself and when the rope tightened the weight he generated from his inertia broke either the limb, the rope, or his head, and he falling headlong burst asunder when he hit the ground.

So the question is, is the scripture contradicted or is it just giving some information here by one man's account, and a little more information from another man's account? This is no different than a detective interviewing more than one witness to piece the entire story together. And so it is with the bible...a little here, and a little there. And you are to be the workman studying and rightly dividing to fit the pieces together to make the whole puzzle fit together.

 

EXAMPLE #2

1 Chron 21:5 And Joab gave the sum of the number of the people unto David. And all they of Israel were a thousand thousand and an hundred thousand men that drew sword: and Judah was four hundred threescore and ten thousand men that drew sword.

2 Sam. 24:9 And Joab gave up the sum of the number of the people unto the king: and there were in Israel eight hundred thousand valiant men that drew the sword; and the men of Judah were five hundred thousand men.

Notice the wording. 1 Chron. 21:5 is a total all men that drew the sword while 2 Sam. 24:9 is a number of valient men that drew the sword – It would be the same if you were to say the total number of the US army was 1 million fighting men, but the number of Green Berets that are a part of the 1 million, was 100 thousand men.

And then again look at the words of the scripture with the number of men from Judah. The total number of men that drew the sword was 490,000, while the total of the entire army was 500,000.

 

EXAMPLE #3

2 Chron 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.

2 Kings 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.

Let us start at the beginning. Nebuchadnezzar began to reign, and had been reigning for 5 years before Jehoiakim became his servant for 3 years, and then he rebelled. Then Nebuchadnezzar took Jehoiakim captive, which put Jehoiachin reigning the throne by default, with his mother acting as queen and reigning by proxy. This reign only lasted for 3 months and 10 days because according to scripture, he did that which was evil in the sight of the Lord. Which means he (his mother by proxy) was rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar (See 2 Chron. 36:13 when talking about Zedekiah “And he ALSO rebelled against king Nebuchadnezzar…”) Therefore, because of this rebellion, he took him and his mother captive and carried them away to Babylon in the 8^th year of his reign (2 Kings 24:12). Nebuchadnezzar then puts Zedekiah on the throne, which lasted only 11 years. Now notice, while Jehoiachin was still 8 years old, Zedekiah started his reign. Which means that when Zedekiah was taken off the throne after 11 years, Jehoiachin was 18, not 19, because Jehoiachin was 8 all during the first year of his reign. So with some simple math you can see that when Zedekiah was removed from the throne, Jehoiachin is now 18. So he was given the throne a second time by Nebuchadnezzar. Giving the “18 year old” with FULL reigning authority, and no mother to reign by proxy, an opportunity to show he can be in subjection to him. But this reign only lasts 3 months, because he was right back doing what his father had done (rebelling against Nebuchadnezzar). And so he was taken into captivity once again, being released in his 37^th year of captivity (2 Kings 25:27) making him 44 years old. Which coincides with Nebuchadnezzar’s reign of 43 years. So, the way I interpret it, is as the scripture states with no contradictions. It just takes believing the bible is true, even when it seems it isn’t, diligent study, and having the patience to piece the puzzle together.

 

Hopefully, these explanations are clear enough for you to see, and has given you some more faith in believing that the bible is truth from cover to cover. It just needs to be studied and rightly divided in order to make sense of it, otherwise you could fall into a ditch. I am not sure what materials you have to help you in your studies, but if you are serious about learning the bible, may I suggest a vast library of commentaries and books by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman to help you with getting to know your bible. He has actually done an extensive and exhaustive work entitled “Problem Texts” that could assist you with these supposed contradictions within the scriptures.   

Jim_Alaska,

Thank you for pointing out me as the offending poster. I wasn’t sure whom you were speaking of. Going forward I will refrain from using the terms Pharisaical, Phariseism, or any other such terms.

I apologize for my rude and contemptible speech.

To all,

I will attempt to change my approach, and hopefully have a better discussion on this subject of divorce and or a second marriage being a sin, as well as the effects it has on the qualifications of the office of a bishop. I have listed a few questions below, and am seeking the teachings of all that care to answer them. If you feel that some are connected, then please feel free to combine them. Reading other posts on this same subject, I understand that not everyone’s teaching will be 100% the exact same. But please be exhaustive as much as possible to teach me why you see the answers in the light you present it in.

1) When does the accountability of the bishop for ALL of the qualifications go into effect?

• ·         Please list beside each trait at what point in his life does he become disqualified for not being:

1)      blameless (Example) – The moment he broke any law (God’s or man’s).

2)      the husband of one wife

3)      vigilant

4)      sober

5)      of good behaviour

6)      given to hospitality

7)      apt to teach

8 )      Not given to wine

9)      no striker

10)   not greedy of filthy lucre

11)   but patient

12)   not a brawler

13)   not covetous

14)   One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity

15)   Not a novice

16)   have a good report of them which are without

2) What is the meaning of "husband of one wife"?

• As I see it there are 2 interpretations 1) A man married to one woman his entire life. 2) A man having only one wife while married (i.e. Anti-polygamy). Are there more interpretations and why is the one chosen the correct interpretation?

3) Are there any exceptions (i.e. Death, Desertion, Adultery) for a man that divorced and married another woman to still meet the qualifications?

4) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified, what fields of ministry or offices is he allowed to partake in, and what is he allowed to do in said ministries or offices, and what scriptures are used to qualify him for use in those ministries or offices?

5) Was Judas Iscariot a bishop, and which local church gave him his bishoprick? (Acts 1:20)

6) Please clarify the way Christ loving the church means that a man’s marriage is to be a carbon copy or an earthly representation of Christ being married to one church.

• To me there are very distinct differences between the church and a physical wife. The church does not die, wives do. The church is a city, wives are human beings. The church is spotless, pure, and a virgin, wives are not. A man’s wife has power over her husband’s body; how does that apply to the church having power over Christ’s body?
• I am just not seeing this being what Paul was saying, but rather that he (the husband) is to love (Feel tender affection for somebody) his wife (the woman to whom a man is married) just as Christ does the church and GIVE (To present or deliver something that he or she owns to another person) himself (his body) for her. I also believe this is why Paul made his statements in Eph. 5:28-29 & 1 Cor 7:4-5.
• If I am wrong, please show me where my interpretation is off course.

7) Does Matt 5:31-32 and Matt 19:9 apply to the born again believer in the church age? If the answer is yes, please also explain how Matt 5:22-30 applies to the believer today.

8) What is the meaning of 1 Cor 7:27-28?

9) What did Paul mean when he said “All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any”? (1Cor 6:12) “All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.”? (1 Cor 10:23) And does this scripture also cross reference to Gal. 5:13?

On 9/25/2019 at 12:52 AM, John Young said:

The reason the Bishop cannot have two wives is because Christ does not have two wives. Nor does he have "one church at a time". He hated it when the Priest of the OT made excuses for their infidelity, so what makes us NT priest think we are any better or that he now thinks it is okay?!! 

"Abandonment" is also not an excuse as the Hardness of the man's heart toward his wife is why most wives "abandon" their husbands and disqualifies regardless of fault. It is a disqualifier from the office but not from service. If a man can not accept that, then it reveals his hard heart and desire to hold on to power of some-sort. A humble Bishop who has been disqualified has sorrow that he no longer is a symbol and example of Chris's marital relationship and will step down in hopes a better qualified example can fill that role. In particular so that the spirit and power of the office and the Lord's church be not hindered as shown by the rebellious priest in Malachi 2.

I personally believe one of the big reasons the modern church is struggling today, and lacks power is because Bishops and churches (even in the IFB types) refuse to disqualify pastors but instead make excuses for their sin and why they are minumily qualified and keep ordaining men of lower and lower caliber in stead of seeking men who are at the strictest example of the qualifications. 

Wanted to include the whole quote so that I do not misquote or misinterpret.

As you can see the context, the entire topic of the first 2 paragraphs is about DIVORCE. So if it was a general statement on the last paragraph, then I am not seeing it stated as such, and was only left to assume it was a statement referring back to it's preceding paragraphs degrading men that have been divorced. Perhaps, Mr Young can clarify, as I have asked him to do in a previous post.

8 minutes ago, DaveW said:

I didn't say you were wrong, I simply suggested a line of study for anyone who cared.

It is always better for us to study for ourselves rather than accept what someone says.

Does the passage speak of sin or qualifications, and what impact does that have on the subject?

Ok, I must have misunderstood your post that claimed I was being offensive and juvenile with my accusations into meaning that I was wrong.

As far as the sin issue that is being addressed, It was brought to my attention that Matt. 5 & 19 and I suppose the same cross references in Mark & Luke teach that a Christian today in the church age is committing the sin of adultery when they put away their wife and marry another. With it being taught that he is married to 2 women at the same time in God's eyes. So therefore the bishop must be blameless of this sin, by being married to only one woman in his life. This seems to be the standard teaching from a lot that believe in married only once in a lifetime. And it must have been a concern or a common teaching even back in Paul's day, and so he had to preach an entire chapter on it in 1 Cor. 7, and then towards the end of it assure the people that if you marry after being loosed it was NOT a sin.

On 10/12/2019 at 3:04 AM, John Young said:

Wow. It is not Pharisaical to give God our best and to be Qualified. To say that it is Pharisaical to hold men to the NT qualifications of a church office is certainly not right. No one ever said they could not serve or be very valuable to God. Nor that "we are better than they" or that they have no forgiveness. Only that they should not hold on to an office to which they are not qualified.

John,

It was your own words that claimed there were men of lower degree defiling the church, and that that lower degree was due to some personal part of their life (divorce). It wasn't because they were preaching falsehoods on the foundational doctrines, or because they were teaching another way of salvation contrary to Paul's gospel, or teaching others to believe in perverted versions of the bible. It was because they didn't live up to the misinterpreted meaning of "of one wife". It was OK that God called a murderer to free his people, or an adulterer and a murderer to be king over his people, and a brawler and striker to preach the gospel of the circumcision, and a murderer and an abetter to murder to preach the gospel to the uncircumcised, but that "sin" of divorce is just too much for God to forgive & forget to call that man to preach and teach his word.

You used the terminology of higher & lower degree...And while you may claim they are forgiven...you believe and teach that their "sin" is not forgotten. And I will keep stating what I have since the start. This is Pharisaical.

On 10/15/2019 at 7:07 AM, DaveW said:

1 Timothy 3

 1  This is a true saying, If a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work.

 2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; note

 3  Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; note

 4  One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;

 5  (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

 6  Not a novice, lest being lifted up with pride he fall into the condemnation of the devil. note

 7  Moreover he must have a good report of them which are without; lest he fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

 

I have been rather surprised that people are talking about sin in relation to this passage.

Where does it talk about sin?

It doesn't.  It speaks of qualifications, not sin.

Maybe people should consider that rather than talking about this in terms of sin.

Sin?

Qualifications?

What is the difference between them?

Interesting study for those who can be bothered and are interested in the biblical truth rather than winning an argument.

If you believe that I am wrong, then please give me a lesson on this passage, and its true biblical meaning. If I am mistaken about my view of the scripture, please show me where I am wrong. If you would give your commentary on this passage I will be glad to consider it, and if it is biblicaly sound, I will concede and begin teaching it as Church age doctrine.

So far I am being corrected by multiple individuals, have had very few of my questions answered and, still do not have a clear and concise understanding of what the standard group belief is. I hear opinions, and get rebuked when I do not agree with them. I get brought back to Old Testament Mosaic law, and get rebuked when I do not agree with putting a saved believer of today under those laws. I ask questions, and get no answers. If it is not Pharisaical to judge other men in the ministry on their personal lives, then show me the scriptures that say so. If it is not Pharisaical to believe that there are some men that are of "lesser degree" than other men, then show me where Paul preached this. If it is not Pharisaical to stop these men of lower degree from preaching and teaching the word of God to the lost and saved, then please show me.

So I am asking for you and any one else to please give me an exhaustive commentary on 1 Tim 3:2, and show me why my interpretation of "husband of one wife" is incorrect.

I am particularly interested in the following:

1) What is the actual biblical meaning of "husband of one wife"?

2) Are there any exceptions for a man that divorced and married another woman?

3) If there are no exceptions, and he is disqualified what is he allowed to do in the church, mission field, etc.?

4) When do the other remaining qualifications go into effect? At birth? At seminary? At the desire?

5) And depending on when the other qualifications start, why is the one about marriage a one and done no matter when it happened in his life?

6) And lastly, where does it say that a bishop's marriage is to be an example or carbon copy of Christ's to the church? I read where every man is to love his wife as Christ does the church, and to treat her as he would his own flesh, but I am just not seeing where it says "The reason the Bishop cannot have two wives is because Christ does not have two wives. Nor does he have "one church at a time"."

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

Now, I've said what I believe about it. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong...but I really don't care to go around and around about it any longer.

This is fine, because I feel the same way. We and everyone that has contributed to this thread since I spoke up are going round and round.

I feel I have stated my view of the scripture as it reads, as opposed to all others giving me the “meaning” of the scripture as they teach it. And while it has been enlightening to learn how the IFB brethren view themselves, and others of “lower caliber”(John Young), it is also extremely disheartening to learn that there is such Pharisieism among the group that is supposed to be the closest to the sound doctrines of the bible.

With that said I will respond to this post, but understand if there is no reply.

I honestly thought that I would have gotten some support on this subject here, and that there wouldn’t have been the immense Phariseical push back that I have received. Do any of you actually pray “God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.”? And if you say you don’t, I implore to reread what is being said in your posts, because that is exactly what is being said…You are teaching that the bishop is to be “better”(married to one wife is better than being married more than once, because he is a man of “higher caliber”) than other men in order to be a bishop. As I said in my introduction, I came across this site seeking info on PBI. And when I saw the negative things being said about Dr. Ruckman, and the false teaching, that he or anyone was “disqualified” from what God called him to do because of a misinterpretation of the words OF and WIFE, I wanted to give my 2 cents as it were, and then the rebuttals started pouring in.

I have tried my best to show God is forgiving and forgetting of all sin, and never goes back on what he has called anyone to do (Rom. 11:29), and that anyone can get back up after being in a pit (of either his or someone else’s doing) (Jer. 38:6) and continue preaching and teaching others the word of God, continue preaching to the masses in an attempt to see souls saved, go and stand on a foreign field and preach and teach others blinded by the god of this world, and go out and preach to the lost, and rebuke, correct, instruct and exhort the church with a humble attitude, knowing that no one is perfect, and everyone needs time and patience to grow into what God wants to make them, not what “the church” expects them to be.

Again, I never thought that a teaching of forgiveness and exhortation to those that are or have been through a difficult and troubling time would be met with such a confrontational and perhaps a slight rebuking spirit. As I am being told that I am teaching false doctrine by encouraging others to free themselves from the shackles of false hindrance and guilt, realize that just because the Devil was able to score a home run on destroying their marriage, that our great Captain still wants them on the pitcher’s mound, and to get back out there, brush off the dust of doubt and depression, pick the book back up, and keep pitching the word of God out to the lost and to the Christian, correctly and rightly divided. Can’t you see the simplicity in this? If you were the coach of Roger Clemens, and his wife left him, and took his kids while he was employed by you, you wouldn’t demote him to ball boy, or any other “lower office” on the ball field. You hired him to pitch. So why would you think that God wouldn’t do the same? He called the man to preach…he didn’t call his wife or his children. If the wife and kids stay, thank the Lord. If the wife and kids leave, thank the Lord. (1 Thess. 5:18) It does not change what God called you to do.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

I will say this though...in my understanding from situations that I'm aware of, the leading cause for why the wife left the husband was due to the husband no longer showing his wife proper love and affection. It wasn't money issues, it wasn't physical abuse, or anything else...it was for a lack of love. I guess God knew what he was talking about when he commanded husbands to love their wives...

I'm not saying that is the only cause for why wives leave, but it is a major cause.

I would like to take an objective view to this.

In 1970 divorces, in America, skyrocketed, and have steadily risen since. So what happened? According to the view on this thread, men on a national scale, seemingly over night at the turn of the decade became hard hearted.

Or, did a Governor, named Reagan, sign a “no fault” divorce bill into effect that every state afterward adopted and have made divorces as easy as changing clothes. Did a man open a flood gate for rebellious spouses (MEN and WOMEN) and give them an easy way out of a promise and vow they made? And, according to the scriptures you quote in Matthew, if it is the men that are hard hearted, aren't they the ones supposed to be putting away wives? So, why is it that wives file for over 80% of all divorces?

These are hard objective facts. There is so much more to the issue of divorce than just blaming most fault on the "unloving" "hard hearted" men. In the cases I have seen, my subjective view, it is mostly the men that were doing their best to be good husbands, love their wives and provide for their them and the children, and it was the mostly the men that were willing to work on improving the marriage when issues arose, and it was mostly the women that chose the easy way (No Fault) out of the marriage, taking with them nice fat child support and alimony checks in order to be able to live very comfortably without being in subjection to a man. Yes, some men are dogs, abusive, and downright horrible and dishonorable, but it has been my experience that they are the minority.

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

God allowed divorce for the Israelites because of the hardness of their hearts, but in the beginning, it wasn't so.

Now, I'm not claiming that I'm right. I believe I am, but I'm always willing to be wrong. So...this is my view on it...

Christ explicitly said in Matthew 19:7-9...

7 They say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away?

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.

So, according to God, if a man divorces his wife for any reason (other than fornication) and marries another woman, he commits adultery. So, in God's eyes, the husband is bound to his first wife unless the wife committed fornication. Later, Paul addressed the issue in 1 Corinthians 7:15 and added that if an unbelieving spouse departs, the believer isn't under bondage.

Therefore, in my understanding, those are the only two biblical reasons for divorce. 

So, the question arises, can a man pastor who has divorced for biblical reasons? Well, it certainly depends on who you ask. If you ask me, I would say, "No. He shouldn't pastor. Nor should he be a deacon." 

Yes, God will forgive any sin. Yes, God can still use a man or woman (who is divorced) in mighty ways.

However, the qualifications for pastors and deacons are also explicit. They are to be the husband of one wife. If a man is divorced and remarries, he has two wives in God's eyes. The sin may be forgiven, but that doesn't negate the truth that he has two wives.

First, it seems I am seeing a very common thing amongst all on this thread. It seems that most if not all keep going back to the Old Testament law or during the time of Christ when the law was still in effect in order to prove your doctrine. I am really curious why this is? Are we not in the New Testament, and no longer UNDER the burden of the laws and ordinances? Christ nailed these to his cross, why are you pulling them off and putting men under it? Why do you think he said that "his yoke is easy, and that his burden is light"?

Second, besides the fact the question being brought up is about Mosaic Law, as stated above, I would point you to the first 4 words of verses 8 & 9 of the scriptures you are quoting in Matthew. Who is Christ talking to? Where is the church located in these passages? If the church is not there at this time, why do you keep bringing her back to a passage spoken by a Jewish Messiah to Jewish people receiving instruction for a Jewish kingdom? I say again we are not under Jewish, Mosaic Law, nor should we be looking for instruction for an earthly kingdom.

Third, if a second marriage is a sin, and you are married to two women, how exactly does God forgive something that you are willfully doing every second of your life? Do you have to ask for forgiveness for being married to this adulteress woman every night, and she must ask forgiveness for being married to an hard hearted adulteress man every night? And if remarriage is a sin, please enlighten me on 1 Cor. 7:27-28, where it clearly says it is NOT a sin, and I find no conditions or reasons for the spouse being loosed to change it into a sin.

And lastly, I would like to point out the double standard of your doctrine. When I brought up about the bishop not being a brawler ever in his lifetime….You said and I quote “We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.” Yet, of your own admission, the application of the word “in” only applies to every qualification except the one about his marriage. So your own teaching has double standards, when it fits your choosing. They either ALL apply while "in" office, or they ALL apply for his entire lifetime. Which is it? There is no time restraint conditions when he lists the qualifications, AND to point out the biggest hole in your argument, there is the fact that the man is NOT "in" the office as you stated...Paul says "If a man DESIRES the office..." he is to be blameless in all areas of the list. So, if the qualifications apply to his entire life, then he must be blameless his entire life. I'm sure we can agree this is impossible, therefore it must apply at his "desire" which means that he could have been a brawler, he could have been not apt to teach, he could have been not of good behavior, and he could have been married to two women at the same time. Therefore, I teach it is not a man TO one WOMAN, but that he is to have ONE WIFE while he is a HUSBAND, or as it states ..."the husband OF one wife"

 

On 10/7/2019 at 1:04 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

I didn't say that I punished my wife. I said that I had to enforce rules.

And finally, I NEVER said you punished your wife. Another example of words being put where they are not.

You said, and I quote “I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife.”

I said, and I quote “And I disagree with you on “punishing” a wife in any fashion or form.”

15 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I'm afraid that this is one area that we will probably never agree on. I recall from somewhere else on this forum, that you don't believe in looking at the Greek or Hebrew definitions. I do. I see that at times, by looking up Greek/Hebrew definitions, it will clarify definitions even more. I also see it as another avenue in which to "study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needed not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

In the Greek, "house" and "home" have basically the same meaning; however, "house" is more in-depth and includes those who live in the "house"...which includes the wife.

I feel we are running in circles. We both believe the same definition regarding "rule"...the different aspects of it. Yes, I would say that punishment applies to the wife as well; however, how one deals with a wife is far different than how one deals with all of the other examples you gave. Yes, there have been times; in which, I've had to "enforce rules" with my wife. I certainly won't go into details. During those times, it wasn't pleasurable for her nor me. However, I continued to love, provide, and care for her. One can enforce rules without being a tyrant and a bully. One can enforce rules without the attitude of "it's my way or the highway".

Yes, we agree to disagree. And yes, I do not believe in going back to the Greek or Hebrew in order to clear up the plain English.  

And I disagree with you on “punishing” a wife in any fashion or form. 

How is that a political answer? It's the truth. Can you tell us any more about the father than what is revealed in the story? The only indication that I see of him being a good ruler before the incident was that the younger son recalled how well the father's servants were taken care of. We have nothing after the story. So no, I'm not ducking the question nor giving a political answer...I'm answering as honestly as I can.

I think you are missing the main point of what I am asking then...It has been said on this thread, with others saying AMEN, and I quote “ "Abandonment" is also not an excuse as the Hardness of the man's heart toward his wife is why most wives "abandon" their husbands and disqualifies regardless of fault." The point is...IF a wife or a child leaves the “house” or is unruly, then it is the husbands/ fathers fault because of his hard heart, and I quote... “regardless of fault.” So, if this is what is taught by some on here, then they HAVE to also preach that the father of Luke 15 was hard hearted, and that is why the son left, and why the other son rebelled.  

Now, again there is not one preacher that preaches this passage and even eludes to this fact.  

So, it is OK, when one preaches about the prodigal son and the father, to ignore the hardness of his heart that drove his children to rebel against him, and just preach the longsuffering, grace, forgiveness, and mercy of the father? And lastly, if this is true, then this teaching HAS to apply to God the Father, not only with the children of Israel, but also with us when we rebel against his word, and sin. It was ultimately God’s hard heart that drove us away. 

Now, I understand that this was not your quote, but no one has called this quote wrong, except me. And I will continue to say it. This ridiculous teaching is putting good men, who are being looked down upon by pharisaical, holier than thous, and willingly getting out or being forced out what God called them to do.  

I stand with David in the cave of Adullam, “And every one that was in distress, and every one that was in debt, and every one that was discontented, gathered themselves unto him..." 

So, for any reading this post that have had a divorce, trouble on the homefront, or ANY other thing that some on this thread here teach are unforgivable & unforgettable sins, and try to hinder you from what God called you to do, by convincing you that you are not worthy anymore to preach and teach. I say run to Christ to the cave of Adullam, he will not cast you out, he will not shackle you....He will take you just as you are, and will free you from the distress, debt, and discontent that has you weighted down by these false teaching Pharisees. He is known for taking your pain and turning it into passion, taking your mess and turning it into a masterpiece. There is nothing that God can't do, including forgiving and FORGETTING any sin...including divorce. 

Both sons did not go prodigal. Only the younger son did...

prodigal

adjective

1. spending money or resources freely and recklessly; wastefully extravagant.

2. having or giving something on a lavish scale.

 

noun

a person who spends money in a recklessly extravagant way.

Both sons got their inheritance at the same time, but only the younger son went prodigal. The older son didn't go prodigal; however, during that one moment, the older son showed anger, jealousy, and rebellion toward his father. Despite this, the father...rather than punishing him, he spoke to him in love and compassion; which at times, is a much more effective method to "enforce" others with.

I agree and concede with your correcting me on my definition of prodigal.  

Yet my thought, which I did not openly say, and I apologize for not clarifying, was that the elder brother may not have physically left the fathers house, but he most certainly did in his heart. Notice, he says that his brother devoured his living with harlots? Where was that in the story? It never said that he spent a dime on prostitutes. What it reveals is what was in the elder brother's heart...that is what he would have done if he would have been out there. So, in a sense the elder brother left the fathers house in his heart, and this is just as sinful as the very act. For God looks on the heart.  

See, some think because that they don’t go out and drink, smoke, cuss, steal, cheat on their wives, or run with people of “lower caliber” that they are not sinning and going prodigal. But, God looks at a man's heart and what is on the inside of it...the bitterness, the anger, the strife, contention, wrath, emulation, the evil wicked thoughts, the lust, the sowing discord, the lying and unruly tongue, and on and on the list goes. The prodigal son was prodigal long before he left the fathers house, just like the elder brother. A man does not become a sinner because he sins, he sins because he is a sinner. 

Well, we can judge by what God's word says about it.

We're talking about a man who is in the position of a bishop not being a brawler...not what he did as a child.

So then, with this statement....the teaching is, as long as the man has had the divorce before his acceptance from the local church of a pastorate, then he is able to be qualified?  

I was just trying to see how much you relied upon using Old Testament law to justify things.

No, I'm saying that God said that. I don't understand it, but that's what it says.

We will once again have to agree to disagree.  

(14:a)  Turn, O backsliding children, saith the Lord; for I am married unto you:

I am - present tense

(14:b)  and I will take you one of a city, and two of a family, and I will bring you to Zion:

I will - future tense

15 And I will give you pastors according to mine heart, which shall feed you with knowledge and understanding.

I will - future tense

16 And it shall come to pass, when ye be multiplied and increased in the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more, The ark of the covenant of the Lord: neither shall it come to mind: neither shall they remember it; neither shall they visit it; neither shall that be done any more.

all future tense

17 At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered unto it, to the name of the Lord, to Jerusalem: neither shall they walk any more after the imagination of their evil heart.

I won't keep underlining things; they're all future

18 In those days the house of Judah shall walk with the house of Israel, and they shall come together out of the land of the north to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto your fathers.

future

So, the context is all future...except for the one part that you're trying to force into the future.

We will once again have to agree to disagree. My view, and perhaps I am wrong, is the present to the future split occurs at the semicolon of verse 14. He goes from addressing children to addressing his wife. Guess we will find out in Glory. 

Of course I believe that. All three members of the godhead are God, and they are one. Yet, they are also three distinct individuals (or persons). The word "prodigal" isn't in the Bible, but you used the word prodigal to describe the son who left his father's house and lived by wasteful and extravagant spending. I think most people have the wrong understanding in what prodigal means, but the word prodigal does explain the way the younger son lived. So, there was nothing wrong with you describing him as prodigal.

At the same time, while those verses that you quoted don't mention the word person, each member of the godhead exhibits the traits that define what a person consists of. There is more to being a "person" than being a human being.

Which brings me to Oneness Theology. Since you're unaware of what it is, Oneness theology basically teaches that there is no Trinity; there is only Jesus Christ...no Father, and no Holy Spirit. However, there are some off-shoots of it, that will agree that there is a Father and Holy Spirit; however, they are just different manifestations of Jesus Christ.

If that is its teaching, then I am most definitely not a Oneness believer.  

My belief on the trinity is as such:  

I believe in God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. 3 separate manifestations of the same person, and all three parts are the one and only God. Able to separate each part individually, yet at the same time not be separate. Omnipresent. Just as we are here on this earth presently, yet also seated with him in heavenly places at the same time. (Eph. 2:6) I do not claim to understand it completely.    

The only sense I can make of it is that even though we are 3 separate parts (Body, Soul, Spirit), they make up only one person, yet because we are IN Christ, we are at this very moment with him seated in heaven........So, at least for me, the ability to comprehend the trinity is very limited.   

But now, Jesus Christ was something altogether different. He was the only begotten of God. God was his Father, and Mary was the man side of him’s mother. Yet she was not the God side of him’s mother. Mary was never, ever, EVER the mother of God. (Hopefully I was clear on that)  

He was all man as well as all God. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees in Jn 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am". I AM, is the name God gave to Moses to tell the children of Israel if they asked who sent him, and then the scripture calls Christ, "The mighty God, the everlasting Father" in Isa. 9:6.  

So while Christ is God, there was also the spirit of man, and physical body that he received from being born through Mary, that was separate and in subjection to God the Father, which was in heaven, at the same time Christ was on earth, working, eating, resting, sleeping, using the bathroom, etc. all the while being himself, God. Paul calls it a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16). This is why he spoke to God the Father as a separate person, prayed to God the Father, and cried at the end of his earthly life as a man rejected by God the Father..."My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Again I do not claim to know every aspect or be able to comprehend the whole thing or the distinctions of how he was able to make those disconnects from his flesh and being all God. All I know is what the scripture says, and I just believe it, knowing one day, I'll understand it. 

 

No Nicolaitans,

I will be continuing my studies after work this week and it will more than likely be some time before I am back on.

 

No Nicolaitans,

I apologize that my slackness in responding has offended you. It is true that I am at work, as OLD fashioned preacher suggested, but it is more like 13 - 14 hrs per day with a lot of driving being part of it, and I am also heavily involved in bible and German language studies afterward which keeps me busy till 11pm or later. Which leaves only about 5 hrs for sleep. Again I apologize that it has taken me so long to respond.

On 9/26/2019 at 5:10 AM, No Nicolaitans said:

My reason for saying that was because I was under the impression that with your emphasis on the word "rule" (in all capital letters), you were looking at ruling as one who is an enforcer of rules and regulations. I never got an impression that you saw it as anything more than that.

I would hope that if I found that my wife was doing things that I thought were wrong biblically, I would talk with her and explain why I disagree, and I would assure her that I still love her deeply. I would hope that I would do my best to love her as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. I would continue to care for her, provide for her, and enjoy my life with her. Most importantly, just as each of us do things wrong every day...but Christ is still there...waiting with open arms...I would hope that my prayers and loving guidance would influence her. If so, I would be waiting with open arms. If not, I would still do what I'm supposed to do...love my wife as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it.

I can't tell you; the Bible doesn't say whether he was or not. All we have is that one window into his and his son's lives. In that one window, he was a wise, kind, caring, and compassionate father.

As to the above, you are correct in your impression up to a point. As I stated before, I do believe that rule is love and care, but I do not believe it is ONLY "...loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, etc..." Part of a king's rule is to keep a civil realm, and punish evil doers, in order to keep the peace in society. Part of being an employer, is to keep the employees from getting out of hand and doing as they please when they please. So sometimes he punishes in the form of withholding bonuses or other company approved means. And, even a pastor at times must enact steps to eject an unruly member from the local church. So what I am trying to say is that the word rule does carry some negative aspects to it. This is why, I believe the scripture says "his HOUSE" and not "his home",  "his wife or children" or "his family". If a man has set up rules and has communicated the punishment or reward for these rules in his house (which, by the way, could be more than just his address), and then carries out the enforcement of said rules, then that is what makes him a good ruler, not whether those that are supposed to be in subjection to those rules decide whether they want to. Again that is why the scripture said "If a MAN know not how to rule..." and not "father" or "husband", because some men called to bishop are not married.

But, IF a preacher & teacher is still convinced that 1 Tim 3:4-5 includes the wife in its context, then he has to preach the FULL definition of the word rule. Every aspect of the loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and PUNISHING them. So I ask again, is this what is being suggested towards the wife?

As to the father in Luke 15. Any preacher, whether Baptist, Methodist, Charismatic,  Episcopalian, Presbyterian, etc. and probably even Catholic, has preached this message in their life, and has likened the father to God the Father every time. So to say "I can't tell you" is ducking the question without ducking the question. It sounds like a politicians answer. According to some's definitions on here, since both sons went prodigal, this made the father a bad ruler of his house. For that matter, since God couldn't keep Israel from going prodigal, even though he gave them rules and punishment when they broke them, then that makes him a bad ruler? I'm not sure why this is so hard to see as to how stupid this teaching is. Yet I just heard a preacher the other day say, that if his children were to go prodigal, that he would have to step down from the "office". I know of a man that was denied access to a prison, where men needed to hear the gospel, because the pastor of the local church that sponsored the work, found out the man had been divorced. Do you think that pastor went down and took over the meeting? No, he just shut the door on the work. I guess those "wicked" prisoners didn't deserve God's forgiveness, and FORGETFULNESS, just like that divorced preacher didn't deserve the forgetfulness from the "brethren". I would caution any reading this to see what the children of Esau and Edom did in Obadiah 1 to the children of Israel when Nebuchadnezzar attacked Jerusalem. They hindered their escape and Babylon was able to catch and slaughter many of God's people. Some on here are doing just as them, blocking and keeping Christians from escaping, and holding them back to allow the Devil to pierce them through with the darts of depression, defeat and despair. Who are we to judge any of God's children on whether he is "qualified" to be a bishop, and on such a petty, insignificant matter. And especially if it is something that he had no control over. The scripture says he is not to be a brawler as well. So if he EVER (kindergarten - this day) got into a fist fight then he is not qualified for the "office" of a bishop? Come on, really? This is not Christlike, this is Pharisaical. Christ accepts you in any condition, forgives, and forgets. Pharisees, reject those not like them, put down, burden, and keep men from coming to Christ.

10 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

According to the law, if the original husband divorced his wife, and she married another man...then her second husband divorced her (or if he died)...if the original husband married her again...it would be an abomination. 

Is the LORD a sinner? Would he commit an abomination?

I believe that you have your timeline of events out of order...

The LORD said that he gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but just moments later in Jeremiah 3:14...after pleading for them to return to him...then the LORD said, "for I am married to you."

Divorced but still married...hmmm...

You are absolutely, 100% correct on the facts of the Mosaic Law given to the JEWISH people in the OLD TESTAMENT. But, last I checked these were nailed to the cross, and that they had been taken away (Col.2:14).

But, regardless…you are still incorrect on your understanding of the law. Let’s read the scripture, and see what it says:

Deut. 24:

       1.       When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house.

       2.       And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man's wife.

       3.       And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband  die, which took her to be his wife;

       4.       Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.

        Ok, about this question you have asked about the law of Moses concerning a divorced wife and the first husband remarrying her. You are missing a key element from the description of the wife that married a latter husband when it comes to God the Father and Israel....Who is her latter husband? Who is she said to have married after God wrote the bill of divorcement? Now, you could guess or speculate, but where does it say that Israel has married so and so, and has a latter husband? He and Israel will be reconciled. So while there may be an argument to prove that he is the husband then of still "one" wife. The fact remains that 1) he was divorced, and while his reconciliation would, I ASSUME, put him back in the good graces of the brethren at the local church to reinstate him to the "office" that they control (that was sarcasm by the way), how does one justify him 2) not being able to rule his own house well, and because of the hardness of his heart, his wife departed to play the whore, and rebel with strange gods at every opportunity?

“The LORD said that he gave Israel a bill of divorce in Jeremiah 3:8, but just moments later in Jeremiah 3:14...after pleading for them to return to him...then the LORD said, "for I am married to you."

Divorced but still married...hmmm...”

I'm not sure what you’re saying here. I will need some clarification.

Are you saying that God is divorced, but still married? Or are you saying that God lied, and didn’t really give her a bill of divorcement, after he said he did? Surely this is not what you are suggesting?

If you are using verse 14 as your proof text for God still being married to her, I suggest you read the whole context…Verse 14 - When did he bring them to Zion? Verse 15 - Where are the pastors after his own heart? Verse 16 – When shall they say no more, The ark of the covenant?  Verse 17 – When will Jerusalem be called the throne of the LORD? Verse 18 – When will the house of Judah and the house of Israel walk together? Verse 19 – When shall they call him, My Father; and shalt not turn away from me.?  - You are quoting FUTURE passages, speaking of the millennium. None of these things have happened yet. He is prophesying about when he is remarried to her.

Why is LORD in all capital letters? Because it is referring to the Father alone...not the Son, and not the Holy Spirit.

Are you a follower of "Oneness Theology"?

If the godhead is one (as you seem to be inferring), then why did Christ pray to the Father? He could have just prayed to himself if there is no distinction...

Why did Christ say that the Father would send another Comforter after he departed? He could have sent the Holy Spirit himself if there is no distinction. For that matter, why say that "he" would send the Holy Spirit at all if there is no distinction?

Who was/is married to Israel? Whose bride is the church? Are the answers different?

Christ doesn't have a "Gentile" bride. His bride is made up of both Jews and Gentiles...and he sees no difference between them...

On this statement: While yes, I understand there is no distinction of Jew or Gentile IN the body of Christ. Outside the body, there are only 2 types of people:Jew and not Jew, or Gentile. And since the Bride of Christ is definitely not a Jewish wife (That is Israel), I called her a "Gentile" bride in quotation marks.

The Father had/has a bride; Christ has a bride. The Father divorced Israel but is still married to "her". Christ has never been divorced, nor will he ever be divorced.

Yes...the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one. They are one in their attributes and goals. However, they are three separate persons who carry out distinct functions and roles.

I’m not sure what to say to this one. I don't believe I have never met a Baptist that doesn’t believe that Jesus Christ was not God, manifest in the flesh. My first knee jerk reaction to this statement takes me right to 1 Jn. 2:22; 1 Jn. 4:3; and 2 Jn. 1:7. I don’t want to misrepresent what you are actually saying, but surely you believe that Jesus Christ is God, and that the Holy Spirit is God? What has me confused and concerned, is the statements about them being “one in their attributes, and goals” and "three separate persons". The verse does not say “These three are one in attributes and goals” nor that they are "three separate persons"....it says “For there are three (there is no word "persons" here) that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. (PERIOD, nothing about attributes or goals) And there are three (again, there is no word "persons" here) that bear witness in earth, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one.” (This a reference to the witnesses of verse 6 that point to the fact that Christ is God manifest in the flesh)

Again I am not sure what you are suggesting, or what Oneness theology is, but I believe in God, the Father, God, the Son, and God, the Holy Spirit. 3 separate manifestations, separate in their functions, yet all three are the one and only God. I do not claim to understand it completely, as it is an impossible thing with us, and Paul calls it a mystery (1 Tim. 3:16) The only sense I can make of it is that even though we are 3 separate parts (Body, Soul, Spirit), they make up only one person.

But now, Christ was all man as well as all God. This is why Jesus said to the Pharisees in Jn 8:58 "

Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am

". I AM, is the name God gave to Moses to tell the children of Israel if they asked who sent him, and then the scripture calls Christ, "The mighty God, the everlasting Father" in Isa.

9:6. So while he was God, there was also the spirit of man, and physical body that he received from being born through Mary, that was separate and in subjection to God the Father, which was in heaven, at the same time Christ was on earth, working, eating, resting, sleeping, using the bathroom, etc. all the while being himself, God. Thus he spoke of God the Father as a separate person, prayed to God the Father, and cried at the end of his earthly life as a man rejected by God the Father..."My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me?" Again I do not claim to know every aspect or be able to comprehend the whole thing or the distinctions of how he was able to make those disconnects from his flesh and being all God. All I know is what the scripture says, and I just believe it, knowing one day, I'll understand it.

So...getting back to the first part of this post...

If the LORD divorced his wife, and the LORD said (in the law) that it's an abomination to remarry his wife, how can he marry her again?

 

21 hours ago, No Nicolaitans said:

I feel that your definition of "rule" denotes only the negative aspects of a ruler.

Not all who rule are bad, evil, unfair, or serve their own self-interests...

Romans 13:3, Hebrews 13:7, 17, 24

God himself has commanded that the wife be in subjection to her own husband.

If you want to know how a husband is to rule over his wife the correct, loving, and godly way, perhaps this will help?

Ephesians 5:22-33

To "rule" involves more than laying down the law and enforcing it. It involves taking care of those under you, loving them, tending to their needs, protecting them, nurturing them, guiding them, and much more. So yes indeed...if a husband can't rule his own house well (wife included), how can he take care of the church of God?

See...God even says what he meant by "rule" in the same verse...

(For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?)

No Nicolaitans,

I appreciate your response to at least part of my question. I agree 100% with TAKING CARE is part of rule. But, you also said in the beginning of your sentence that it is "more than laying down the law, and enforcing it"....Does this enforcing the law include the wife? If so, what does this mean? I will use a for instance to make the illustration easier - If you find your wife has started listening to music that is anti-christian, and after you have asked her to quit, she either says no, or continues behind your back - What would you do?

Also, with the current definition of John Young in the below post " "Abandonment" is also not an excuse as the Hardness of the man's heart toward his wife is why most wives "abandon" their husbands and disqualifies regardless of fault."

I would still like someone to tell me that the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his house.

19 hours ago, John Young said:

The reason the Bishop cannot have two wives is because Christ does not have two wives. Nor does he have "one church at a time".

Firstly this is OPINION.

Secondly, Christ and the church is a mystery (Eph. 5:32) - Marriage between one man and one woman is NOT a mystery, BUT a marriage that involves one man (Christ) to millions/ billions of saved men & women that make up ONE BODY is. So to use the reason that a bishop's marriage is to be like Christs in this respect makes zero common sense.

So as long as I call many women one body (Jane is my right arm, Mary is my left arm, Jill is my left leg, Donna is my right leg, and Alice is my torso), I can justify polygamy? Sounds silly doesn't it?

Now as to the two wives AND really deepen the mystery of Christ and the church....God the Father was married to Israel (Jer. 3:14) & (Isa. 54:5); then DIVORCED her (Jer. 3:8); and will REMARRY her (Hos. 2:14 - 23) ALL THE WHILE, God the Son is married to the church. So not only does God have a divorce, he also has TWO wives...a Jewish wife & a "Gentile" wife. You do believe that Christ is God, correct? So I ask, how can Christ be the Bishop of our souls if he has been divorced, remarried and have a second wife AT THE SAME TIME?

He hated it when the Priest of the OT made excuses for their infidelity, so what makes us NT priest think we are any better or that he now thinks it is okay?!!

2) I am assuming that your example of the OT Priest, is your argument to say that a bishop today (NT Priest) should not do the same things? I agree 100%, BUT.....Bishops alone are NOT "NT Priests"....EVERY SAVED PERSON is a priest....(Rev. 1:6) not just bishops. Your example applies to EVERYONE. AND...this has nothing to do with a man still being called to bishop AFTER some circumstance or some "outside sin" in his life. The sins on the inside of the heart are far worse than the outside ones.

"Abandonment" is also not an excuse as the Hardness of the man's heart toward his wife is why most wives "abandon" their husbands and disqualifies regardless of fault. It is a disqualifier from the office but not from service. If a man can not accept that, then it reveals his hard heart and desire to hold on to power of some-sort. A humble Bishop who has been disqualified has sorrow that he no longer is a symbol and example of Chris's marital relationship and will step down in hopes a better qualified example can fill that role. In particular so that the spirit and power of the office and the Lord's church be not hindered as shown by the rebellious priest in Malachi 2.

I say again that the "office" of a bishop is not a position that is given to a man by the local church, to take away when it deems appropriate. It is a gift from God to men for the benefit of the church. (Eph. 4:11)

The "The Lord will cut off the man that doeth this..." is speaking about a wicked priest that refuses to repent, and the "cutting off" is DEATH...the priest is still a Levite, that can not change. I am not advocating that a man can do as he pleases without consequence (I thought I made that clear when I said he might have to bishop in prison before being executed for corporal punishable crimes in a previous post?)

I personally believe one of the big reasons the modern church is struggling today, and lacks power is because Bishops and churches (even in the IFB types) refuse to disqualify pastors but instead make excuses for their sin and why they are minumily qualified and keep ordaining men of lower and lower caliber in stead of seeking men who are at the strictest example of the qualifications. 

So I want to make sure I clearly and completely understand this personal belief.

What do you mean by "lower caliber" men? I am having trouble with what that means. Are you saying that if the bishops lived cleaner, more righteous, more holy lives than the common people, that the common people would have an example to look up to, and that would make the church better?

 To whom it may interest,

I have made comments and asked questions in red. I am open to anyone's replies to better understand what seems to be a common position on this matter.

Thank you.

 

1 hour ago, DaveW said:

It seems to me that much is being made of certain definitions, but those definitions for not appear to be true. 

For instance, the greek word from which is translated the word "wife" has a primary meaning of "woman", and a secondary of "specifically a wife", which makes the word a descriptive rather than a "title".

Secondly, a bishop is absolutely required to rule his house well, the reference to children being an addendum to that, but a wife is absolutely a part of that household.

Finally, the rules on divorce must be considered, as Biblically not all divorce is the same.

One thing is certain about divorce though:

Matt 19:8

8 He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so.

 

Hey friend, why don't you pop across to the intro section and introduce yourself properly.

DaveW,

Definitions in the English language are important. Pretty much all the errors that are being made on these subjects of bishop, and wife are due to the misinterpretation of the definitions. 

As to the greek you have mentioned... I thought that this was a KJV site. Are you suggesting that we need to interpret the English with greek word definitions? Did not the translators of 1611 already do this? So what is written in the English should be the English definition of the greek word it was translated from?

Lastly.....I ask anyone to please tell me how to RULE a wife? I again ask you to tell me if the father in Luke 15 was a poor ruler of his household? Is the military poor rulers of their household? I say no....they both are great rulers, but not everyone is a great subject. A man should have rules set up in his house, and should enforce those rules with MERCY and GRACE sprinkled in, just like Christ. (This is what makes a man a great ruler, not whether his wife and/ or children go prodigal)

Hello, I have been asked to introduce myself properly. 

My name is Sean. I am a KJV bible believing independent Baptist. I graduated Pensacola Bible Institute (PBI) in '99. 

I came upon this site by accident searching for info on PBI. I was intrigued due to its statement that it believes the KJV to be the preserved word of God.

I'm sorry Alan, but you really have some issues with putting words where there are none. 

As for me despising you.... Where did I say that?

I am accusing you of being pharisaical, when you teach that a man is disqualified from the calling of being a bishop (AS DEFINED by Eph. 4:11 as a gift given to men, and AS DEFINED by the dictionary) for ANY sin, let alone something as inconsequential and petty as divorce. And yes I believe a man called to be a bishop can commit ANY sin (including but not limited to....rape, theft, lying, murder, gluttony, backbiting, sowing discord, child molestation, bitterness, emulation, wrath, and lastly....ANYTHING) and still be called to bishop. He just may have to do it behind prison walls before he is executed for corporal punishment offenses.

But.....I never said you were more wicked, or more ungodly than Pilate. That was an illustration rather to say "If Pilate saw the truth, why cant you?" So if anything I was saying..."You are saved (I assume), have the Holy Spirit (I assume), and have the words of God preserved in the KJV, so why are you not seeing the truth in the scriptures?" Do not let the spirit of phariseism blind you as it did the Pharisees. We all have had it or have it at some point in our lives. We have all been guilty of looking down on others, and believing we are better than them, and that God can not use them. God's gifts and callings are without repentance. (Rom 11:29) There were no conditions when he made that statement. If God calls a man to bishop, then he is called to bishop no matter if his entire world falls apart around him....due to his own and/ or others (which he has zero control over) circumstances.

If you still continue to hold to your interpretation of 1 Tim. 3....I again ask you or any other on this site to please tell me how to RULE a wife? If a man is a good, loving, Christ like husband who is in the ministry, and his wife decides she made a mistake and wants to go prodigal, and leaves and divorces her husband. What is he to do to keep her, so he does not lose his "office" as defined by some on this thread?

Alan,

Your replies to my post were at best....weak. Absolutely zero bible to prove my "error",  just you saying "You, my friend are the one that is not following the words of Paul the apostle not me." Its like arguing with a child on the playground. Your rebuttal to my "semantics" as you put it, show you value your opinion and them that agree with you more than the words of God. And finally, your addition (putting "wife" in 1 Tim. 3:4....and by the way, still waiting on how a man is to RULE his wife?...this one actually has me concerned & worried on what you actually teach), and deliberate changing of what God says, (and I quote...."being married to ONE WIFE") puts you in the same position as Eve in Gen. 3. And the devil has you passing the poison you eat on to those you have influence on.

Even as wicked and ungodly as Pilate was, he at least had enough sense to know the truth when he saw it. It was the Pharisees that rejected the truth, and didn't want the people to see it.

So therefore....when you ask me to erase or change what have written....I say to you as he said to them "what I have written, I have written"

14 hours ago, Alan said:

...only being married to ONE WIFE (NOT ONE WIFE AT A TIME NEITHER),

Alan, 

You prove my point on this matter...You misquote and misinterpret the passage.

It says the husband OF one wife, it does not say TO one wife, as you have stated above. Also you seem to have confused the word WIFE (which is a title, not a person) with the word WOMAN. These words do not carry the same definition. I'm really not sure how much plainer it could be.

There are 3 problems that I have seen so far on this subject. 1) People have preconceived  opinions or beliefs about this issue 2) there really seems to be an issue with definition of words, and 3) they seem to have a Phariseeical attitude to the subject. That God views divorce as a worse a sin than he did murder and adultery when he , not only allowed King David to live, but also retain his OFFICE of kingship. 

15 hours ago, Alan said:

The scriptures, not quoted by SAB76, that explains very plainly why the bishop should only have one wife (not one wife at a time but only one wife), is clearly brought out by the apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 3:4-5, "One that ruleth his own house well, having his children in subjection with all gravity; (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) If a man is the pastor of the church and cannot rule one wife well than he does not have the ability, or calling from God as according to the scriptures, to take care of the church of God.

Alan

As to the other verse that I did not quote. I'm curious how you are connecting these to be the same thing when there is clearly a number of other attributes between the two? Where is the word WIFE found in these verses? And also, how does one RULE a wife? Do you consider women to be children that need discipline and punishment?

This passage is in respect to the rules that he has established in his house to keep his CHILDREN in subjection. Again, the fact that WIFE is nowhere in this passage you quoted shows how you have a preconceived idea of what you THINK it is saying, and not what it is actually saying.

Would you consider the military to have a good handle on ruling and disciplining its house? They tell you what, when, where, how long on every aspect of your life, and expect you to be in subjection. Yet do they not have men that go AWOL from time to time? So according to your thought process if ONE soldier goes AWOL then the military obviously doesn't rule their house well? Then according to this line of thinking the prodigal son's father was not one that did not rule his house well either? Because BOTH of his sons went prodigal...one just stayed at the house.

As for the bishop issue....

I have shown clearly the definition of the word BISHOP. I again do not know how to make that any clearer. Paul was both an Apostle, and a bishop. He brought the gospel to the Gentiles, established local churches, preached and taught them and cared for them. The definition of a bishop being only allocated to ONE single local church is NOT true...its not even in the Webster's definition I quoted. Bishop is a God gifted overseer to the CHURCH (the body). It is not an OFFICE that is created by the local church.

To prove that it is a gift that is given to a man and not a position granted him from a local church I ask one question. Was Judas Iscariot an apostle and a bishop? Acts 1:20....If the bishoprick given to Judas came from a local church...please name that church.

44 minutes ago, John Young said:

Paul was never a bishop. He was an Apostle, which has different qualifications and requirements.

Also being a Bishop of a church is not a position that God calls to a lifetime position. The office is subject to the church as it is a church office and not a post they can claim by virtue of their calling of God. Additionally a person can fulfill the callings of God without having to be the Bishop of a church.

yes, my mind is blown that these were your comments on my clarification of the "qualifications" of a bishop. 

Firstly, Paul was more than just an apostle. Do you really teach that a man can only hold ONE office in his lifetime?

Let's see the definitions and see which applies to Paul? 

Apostle: A person deputed to execute some important business; but appropriately, a disciple of Christ commissioned to preach the gospel.

Bishop: An overseer; a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director.

If Paul was not a bishop, please explain the last part of 2 Cor. 11:28.

Secondly, the post was mainly about the "qualifications" of the office.

Thirdly, you err by making it an office of the "church", and that the pastor is subject to the church. It is an office that God gifted to the church, and the pastor is subject to Christ and him alone. God calls the pastors to oversee his church, not for the church to decide whether they like their overseer. If they dont like the overseer that God put in the office...find another pasture to feed in.

On 11/20/2006 at 6:52 AM, Pastorj said:

Peter Ruckman is a pastor who is disqualified from the ministry because he is on his 3rd or 4th wife. He violates the qualifications of 1 Timothy. He teaches heretical teachings concerning the KJV. He believes that the KJV is superior to its original text (double inspiration).

My recommendation is to find somewhere else to go that teaches the truth. Here are some options: Crown, Ambassador, New England Baptist College to name a couple.

1 Timothy 3:2  A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach...

You do err not knowing the scriptures, and you err by wresting them to teach what you want it to say.

1 Timothy 3 does not teach what you say it does. If it did, then Paul was not "qualified". Paul had no wife. But it does not say that a bishop is to be "A husband of one wife" it says he is to be "THE husband of one wife" which means that IF he is married, he is to be "the husband" (a title, not a person)...OF one wife (a title, not a person). You also misinterpret the phrase "of one wife". This is a prepositional phrase which tells how many wives the husband is allowed during his marriage. The scripture does NOT say "A husband TO one wife". You must remember that the bible was not written just for America (although, I'm almost certain we have a sect that teaches it's ok for bishops to have multiple wives at one time) It was written for everyone, even cultures that believe in having multiple wives (i.e. Africa, Arabian Nations, etc.) 

So it clearly teaches that a bishop, 1) IF he is married, is to be married to 2) ONE WIFE (remember...wife is a title not a person) during the length of that marriage, it does not teach that it lasts for his entire life.

Please do not live in a fantasy world....there are YOUNG pastors out in this world with young children that need a wife to assist in the ministry and a mother to his children. Some have lost there previous wives to either death or some have lost them to going prodigal for the love of the world, and some of these women have abandoned not only their husbands but also their children. To say that God would "disqualify" these men due to circumstances beyond their control is laughable. God does not repent of his callings nor does he put men in shackles and chains, his yoke is EASY and his burden is LIGHT ....only self righteous Pharisees are the ones that like to disqualify others for not being like them, and impose grievous, heavy burdens on men...Matthew 23:4  For they bind heavy burdens and grievous to be borne, and lay them on men's shoulders; but they themselves will not move them with one of their fingers.